I am serious here too: I don't support the website's initiative. I endorse the technical aspect of it as a way to test whether the design is optimal and achievable, but in no way would I ever support drug dealers.

1. I am against illegal drugs. It is up to the society to have a consent whether x drug should be legal or not. For example, marijuana.

2. Liability and safety. It's safer to assume your pharmacist is giving the right drug and the right amount and the right quality. I am all for reducing the cost and I think we should lower the cost whenever possible, but getting through silk road because it's cheaper/easier to get doesn't meet my standard.

I, too am against illegal drugs like heroin, but I believe legalizing all drugs would help everyone, both the addicts and normal people. Taking away the black market would reduce crime and stop the flow of money into powerful crime organizations. The addict would benefit from cleaner drugs and would not have to break the law to get their fix.

I have seen heroin ruin people's lives and I wish with all my heart that it could be eradicated. However, this is just not possible, and we have to figure out how to live in a world that includes such terrible things. The only people who benefit from criminalization are law enforcement and prison owners.

> I have seen heroin ruin people's lives and I wish with all my heart that it could be eradicated.

Not disagreeing with you, but I (personally) have seen far more people's lives ruined by legal drugs such as alcohol, tobacco and various painkillers than I've seen from hard/illegal drugs (heroin/crack/cannabis/etc).

What is this society that you refer to. Surely it can be the people of the nation, because only 30%-ish of the population votes, so the majority can't be said to be in agreement (I also never recall a nation wide vote on the legality of drugs). Are you referring to politicians' decisions? They are an even smaller part of the overall population and don't even represent the people that they are said to (Money in politics etc). Plus, even if 99% of the entire population were to decide that these drugs are dangerous, why is it then ok to violently stop the 1% from doing something that only harms themselves? If that is just, would it the be ok if 51% of people decided that all soda was dangerous and banned that too? What about cheese burgers, we, as a society, have to stop obesity right? What about cars, which kill more people than drugs ever will?

The idea of the morality of democracy is just another version of the might makes right argument.

Its not allowing people to chose for you, its simply not participating. Not giving consent to any action of any kind can not give consent to an action of others choosing, its akin to saying 0 equals 1.

Yes, choosing not to vote is allowing other people to choose for you. You have the choice to participate in the decision or not, and you choose not to participate. That means you are choosing to allow other people to choose for you.

> Not giving consent to any action of any kind can not give consent

Consent is not the same thing as choice (it may require choice, but it is not equivalent to it.)